Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dat Dere Cell-tech Vandal

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  speedy deletion by User:Athaenara (G7). Peacock (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Long-term abuse/Dat Dere Cell-tech Vandal
Long-term abuse reports are generally not deleted if they contain useful information, but this report is old and does not contain the information that is standard in all new long-term abuse cases. It's not worth the time and effort to recompile this report with all the new templates, since this vandal is no longer active. That being said, this report is quite useless and does not contain any useful information. Netalarm talk 19:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although nom's rationale about completeness has much merit, I feel we should keep this anyway as historical information should the user ever become active again. Deleting it doesn't clear up any storage anyway, it just makes it invisible to non-admins. — Becksguy (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Basically per Becksguy. Not much more to say.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 04:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the old criteria (hasn't been copied over to the new system due to other more important things) states that "Any entry may be removed by anyone if it is clearly an old entry of an inactive vandal; subpages may be nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion." We're still developing the new criteria for the new system, but I thought I'd just drop this by. Also, there really isn't any useful information in that report, so it also falls under the second deletion criteria of "Completely improper, incorrect or malicious (False report), incomplete or totally incoherent. Vandals "reporting themselves" should almost always be reverted.". Link to old criteria. Netalarm talk 05:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Netalarm, if I understand you, you are saying that there is a technical reason to delete this. In that case, why bring this to MfD where people (like me) really don't understand all the issues? — Becksguy (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the directions state to bring to MfD, so I'm inclined to follow them as is. Also, I'd like some input on deleting this report, as it is one off the oddballs (incomplete old inactive ones). Just in case you're curious, all future reports will be archived, instead of deleted. Netalarm talk 06:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per db-author so tagged. Because Netalarm created this page him/herself, and because no one else has edited the page, this page can be speedy deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.